Elis, you state, correctly, that the parties agreed it was in the best interest to allow the ongoing work to continue while the pieces were still in place and the FDA application could be readied. The predicate of that is that the company has increased value with a readied application; i.e. that the incremental scientific work addresses the prior FDA questions. If the additional work has indeed resulted in support of the application, then is it not unreasonable to conclude that an extension of time to allow for the FDA's 90 day clock of consideration be granted. If the work has not resulted in the support of the application, and such has been communicate to the potential bidders, there won't be any bids. It would seem that the company budget to gain the incremental time should be minimal as there are nearly no operational acivities pending the FDA's determination of the application. So what's the hurry to sell the assets? If it was deemed valuable to delay so that the application could be filed, is not the same logic useful in seeking a delay to hear the FDA's response? To argue against a delay because the outcome is out of the hands of the company could as well have been used to not intiate the first delay as the outcome of the testing, while conducted by the company, was certainly not assured. Arguably, the benefit of waiting for the FDA response is economically more meritorious at this point than initially delaying for the sake of testing.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
